INTRODUCTIONDraper’s next observation about the nature and condition of sentient life on Earth is that it evolved, and that it evolved by means of natural selection acting on random genetic mutations. This fact actually makes the flourishing and languishing of sentient beings even worse on theism because a Darwinian world is inevitably cruel in the sense that natural selection cannot operate unless there are winners and losers. So then, given naturalism, and evolution:

“…we are justly confident in the truth of Darwinism, not because we know in any historical detail exactly how natural selection led to biological complexity, but rather because natural selection provides a way of explaining such complexity without having to appeal to the purposes of a supernatural designer. If theism is true, however, then natural selection is not needed to solve the problem of apparent teleological order in the living world. Theistic evolution could be Darwinian, but it could also proceed in a variety of other non-Darwinian ways. As long as a perfect God is guiding evolutionary change, natural selection is not crucial for the development of biological complexity. Thus, given theism, it would not be surprising at all if natural selection played no significant role in the development of such complexity. This means that, if E is to be expected on Darwinism, then that is a predictive success for naturalism, but not for theism.”[1]Indeed, because natural selection “…cannot operate unless there are winners and losers in the struggle to survive and reproduce,”[2] a Darwinian world is exactly what you would expect on naturalism, but not on theism. So, unless God has some morally sufficient reason for using natural selection, the fact of Darwinian evolution strongly confirms naturalism over theism.*

*See Draper's chapter in the book Scientific Approaches to the Philosophy of Religion for his full case.

ASSESSMENT OF DRAPER’S ARGUMENTIn a previous post titled, Flourishing and Languishing of Sentient Life, I believe I decisively showed that the word cruel is not a correct adjective to use to describe a Darwinian world. However, what I did not show in that post is that evolution, and evolution operating via natural selection is expected on theism. Let me attempt to show that now.a.Draper claims that theistic evolution could have proceeded in a variety of non-Darwinian ways without offering any biologically realistic examples, or citing any literature to back up this claim. So, I did some fact checking, and I have it on good authority from a particular Duke professor that evolution cannot proceed by any means other than natural selection in a universe where the second law of thermodynamics is operative! I strongly recommend fact checking Draper as this is already the second time this has happened in two posts. Perhaps Draper would respond again, well, God can design any laws of physics He wants, so, we should observe a universe without the second law of thermodynamics. There are multiple problems with this kind of reply. First of all, as argued in the previous post already mentioned, if scientific essentialism is true, then the assumption that God can design any laws of nature He wants is metaphysically impossible. Second, apart from scientific essentialism, we have positive reasons to think that any universe that doesn’t have the second law of thermodynamics, or something functionally equivalent to it, would be life-prohibiting. Given these known reasons for why God wouldn’t and/or couldn’t design a universe in which natural selection proceeds without the second law operative behind the scenes, it follows that these parallel reasons raise the probability of theism conjoined with natural selection as high as naturalism conjoined with Darwinian evolution. b.Even if natural selection has to play a significant role on theism we should still agree with Draper that, “while survival selection is not at all surprising on Darwinian naturalism, other less brutal forms of natural selection would be more likely on theism.”[3] Fortunately for the theist, we have good reason to think that a less brutal form of natural selection was indeed responsible for the evolution of biological complexity. For a detailed argument see Stuart Kauffman’s book titled At Home in The Universe. When I checked with my authority at Duke, he confirmed that it is uncontroversial in the field of evolutionary science to think that much biological complexity did occur by self-organization, but that contra Kauffman, it is controversial to think this occurred apart from natural selection, instead of because of it. In either case, natural selection isn’t inherently all about survival selection as Draper claims (this is the third fact he has been wrong about now). Rather, there is a completely non-brutal form of natural selection operating on macro and micro molecules that played a significant role in the evolution of biological complexity. By Draper’s own lights then, this fact constitutes evidence for theism over naturalism!c.The last place for Draper to run is to argue that the simple fact of evolution, Darwinian or not, is evidence for naturalism over theism because presumably God didn’t need evolution of any sort to bring about biological complexity, but evolution is the only game in town for the naturalist. Well, as you may or may not know, I have a unique argument which establishes that evolution is the only game in town on theism. Many assume, without argument that God could create any biological creatures God wanted to without using evolution. However, this can only be the case if biological creatures have an intrinsic essence. In that case, biological creatures will have the same behavioral dispositions whether or not God uses evolution to create them. However, it is the consensus view in the philosophy of biology that biological creatures have a historical essence acquired from evolution, rather than intrinsic essence, and that this is a metaphysically necessary truth like water is H2O. Therefore, God had to use evolution because it would have been metaphysically impossible to miraculously create a biological creature without an intrinsic essence to behave according to its intrinsic essence. This would like creating a Prime Minister that is a Prime Number, or a veridical memory from the past that never happened. d.Assume I am wrong that God had to use evolution, and that there are other unknown ways in which evolution could have proceeded in universes without the second laws of thermodynamics that also wouldn’t have other unknown overriding deficiencies. It would still be true that biological creatures have a historical essence. Given that uncontroversial fact, I can think of a morally sufficient reason (in conjunction with the considerations I defended in my Flourishing and Languishing of Sentient Life post) that would justify God in using Darwinian evolution. It is a logically necessary truth that any being which lacks the property of aseity will have limitations on its freedom. Indeed, it seems that God and God alone can have the property of aseity. Any created thing will lack aseity, and thus have limitations on its freedom. Embodied moral agents in particular (even if they have a soul) will have limitations on their freedom in virtue of being created, the laws of nature, genetics, environment, and the like. These factors will either strongly condition or causally determine their actions. The interesting question becomes, what is the best or only way to constitute such a creature in a manner that they would be morally responsible? The answer is unclear. However, one promising route is to use Darwinian evolution. Let me briefly explain since this idea is nascent for me still. There is a fascinating and philosophically rigorous book by Kadri Vihvelin titled Causes, Laws, and Free Will: Why Determinism Doesn’t Matter, “Ipropose a determinism-neutral account of free will. We have the free will common sense says we have by having some bundle of narrow abilities and by being in suitably friendly surroundings; when this is so, we have not only the narrow but also the wide ability to do otherwise. I call this 'the Bundle view'. We have narrow abilities by having dispositions with an intrinsic causal basis; we have wide abilities when the relevant dispositions are not finked, masked, or lacking an extrinsic enabler. I defend a modified version of Lewis's analysis of dispositions, but the Bundle view is not committed to the truth of any particular analysis.”[4] It should be clear that our bundle of dispositions have come from Darwinian evolution and that the way in which they are bundled is morally significant. Darwinian evolution seems to be the best or only way to give us competing dispositions of emotion, behavior, and psychologythat are morally significant. So for example, we have emotion of kindness, compassion, anger, hate, prejudice, and the like. In terms of psychology we have a competing dispositions of self-centeredness and altruism. What is interesting then, is I can’t think of a better way for embodied creatures to be as responsible as possible for the type of character and life they lead. Can you?UNDERSTATED EVIDENCE

In addition to the less brutal form of natural selection that produced the biological complexity we see all around us that favors theism over naturalism, there are 3 items of understated evidence which show that the evolution of intelligent enough creatures to be moral agents is so improbable on naturalistic Darwinian evolution, but so many more times probable on theism, that even if Darwinian evolution, or evolution simpliciter is evidence favoring naturalism over theism, these more specific facts about Darwinian evolution favor theism over naturalism so strongly that it is unclear that naturalism has any predictive advantage in the end.

a.The first of these has to do with the tempo and speed of Darwinian evolution,“The well-known evolutionist Francisco Ayala...estimates that the probability of an intelligent species evolving on an Earthlike planet upon which one-cell organisms have appeared is less than 10 to the minus one million power! This number is so tiny that the evolution of intelligent life is exceedingly unlikely to have occurred even once.” Indeed, as my source at Duke confirmed, even if we do not include natural selection and random genetic mutations in our probability estimates, and instead only factor in the second law of thermodynamics, we still reach the same conclusion. Thus, the fact that moral agents as intelligent as humans evolved is evidence favoring theism over naturalism even if the fact of evolution itself is evidence favoring naturalism over theism. b. There is a further fact about Darwinian evolution that confirms theism over naturalism even if the more general fact of evolution is evidence favoring naturalism over theism. There are at least 16 transitional steps that had to occur in the history of evolution on Earth to move from chemicals to intelligent moral agents,“1. Cells containing only a few hundred gene products must transition to cells containing several thousand gene products.2. Respiration systems must transition from anaerobic to aerobic.3. Cells must develop nuclei.4. Cells must develop mitochondria.5. Cells must transition from free-floating to colony life.6. Single-celled organisms must transition into multicellular organisms.7. Asexual organisms must transition into sexual organisms.8. Organisms must develop eyes or eye precursors.9. Organisms must evolve differentiated organs and appendages.10. Organisms with ectoskeletons must evolve into organisms with endoskeletons.11. Very-small-bodied organisms must become large-bodied organisms12. Non-animal life must transition into animal life13. Non-vascular plants must transition into vascular plants14. Non-chordate animals must evolve into chordate animals15. Animals must develop a mind, free will, and emotions.16. Advanced animals must develop a spirit, symbolic cognition, and symbolic relational capability—in other words, they must become human.This is a fascinating point because it implies that in addition to the stunning efficiency of Darwinian evolution that occured on this planet in terms of its tempo and speed, (given the improbability of intelligent moral agents evolving) there is also an indication of efficiency with respect to the retention, and modification of the body plans that eventually constituted those same intelligent moral agents that came from Darwinian evolution. Specifically, "the 16 steps above imply that no category of life has permanently disappeared in spite of the fact that mass extinctions have occurred throughout life's history. The steps are additions to life, not replacements. If life appeared on Earth without a plan, purpose, or goal, then why have all categories remained? It makes better sense that the Creator would act to ensure that no category of life permanently disappears.” Even more fascinating perhaps is that these two types of efficiency also point towards an environmental fine-tuning behind all those seemingly random, and freakish environmental selection pressures and mass extinctions that have occurred during Earth’s histories since it is those environmental pressures that constrain the logical space of natural selection and thereby drove evolution to be highly efficient in the two ways already mentioned!

c. However, there is yet a third way in which the environmental pressures would have to be intelligently guided (non-interventionist or interventionist). Recall the bundle theory of dispositions that intelligent moral agents on Earth have inherited from billions of years of evolution on Earth. They had to be efficiently packaged within the body plans throughout each of those 16 steps and they were shaped and selected for precisely because of all the multi-faceted environmental conditions and mass extinctions that took place! Thus, these more specific facts about Darwinian evolution are far more probable on theism than on naturalism. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Surprisingly, we have seen that evolution (Darwinian or not) is the only game in town on theism. Moreover, even though it is probable that natural selection is necessary to produce the biological complexity in any life-permitting universe, the fact that a non-brutal form of natural selection, in addition to survival selection, was largely responsible for producing all the biological complexity we see today favors theism over naturalism. Even if evolution, and Darwinian evolution are antecedently more probable on naturalism, we saw that there is a plausible reason relating to moral responsibility that would lead us to predict that God would use evolution, and Darwinian evolution at that which raised the probability of theism given this observation to be nearly as high as naturalism given this observation. Lastly, we saw three understated items of evidence about Darwinian evolution that favor theism over naturalism: 1-the tempo and speed of evolution, 2-the retention of body plans, and 3-the retention of emotional, psychological, and behavioral dispositions that got bundled in a morally significant manner.